Peter Brimelow (“a once-respected conservative voice”) on Goldberg of National Review (a once-conservative, now respected, magazine).

Like Steve
, I feel vaguely benevolent
toward Jonah Goldberg, but for a somewhat different
reason: he is so obviously a trivial smart aleck that I
never have to bother reading him. (Of course, this shows
I`m out of touch with popular culture. I never watch TV
game shows eitherand Jonah is manifestly the

Weakest Link
of establishment conservative

So I`m grateful to the many
disgusted VDARE.COM readers who pointed out his LA
attack on
us, recycled – as is his thrifty fashion – into a

in National Review Online.

Here I want to comment on just one
point in Jonah`s NRO article:

"[VDARE.COM writers]
denounce all conservatives who don`t toe their line as "neocons"
who`ve `caved` to the liberals on all the important issues.
But, that`s only true if you consider the important
issues to revolve around this narrow and nasty emphasis
on what Peter Brimelow calls America`s `specific ethnic

In fact, my emphasis
on America`s "specific ethnic core" is so narrow and
nasty that I`ve mentioned it only once: in

Alien Nation
(page 10). And I was making, not a
moral claim, but a statement of historical fact.

Contrary to the
melting pot myth
, America has not always been a
multicultural, multiracial kaleidoscope held together by
some abstract principles. At the time of the Revolution,
it was completely white, overwhelmingly Protestant
(98%), heavily British (80%), significantly English
(60%). (There were of course black slaves, but they were
not part of the political nation.) Over time,
immigration did gradually alter this, but less than
immigration enthusiasts think – demographers estimate
that the population of the U.S. would be about half of
what it is now if there had been no immigration at
after 1790.  When non-traditional groups
arrived, there was always intense debate which, if the
inflow did not abate spontaneously (the Irish after
1850), resulted in government cut-offs (the Chinese, the
Japanese, the “new immigrants” 1880-1921). And blacks
were painfully integrated. But the U.S. was 90% white as
late as 1960. 

Jonah lovingly quotes
Ramesh Ponnuru

immigration reform as “identity politics
for white people.” (Why can`t whites have identity
politics, incidentally, if blacks and Hispanics —or
Hindus (or Indians)
— can?)
But, historically, “white identity politics” would have
been called simply— “American identity politics.”

You can approve of
this historical fact or not. But you cannot deny it. And
you must admit that the 1965 Immigration Act, which has
resulted in a massive inflow almost entirely from
non-traditional sources with the result that whites are
projected to go into a minority after 2050, is something
quite new in the American experience.  Which inevitably
raises the question: will it work?

Naturally, I don`t
expect Jonah to read my book – or any other book. He
doesn`t have the time, what with writing and all that
television.  But what he`s done instead is to whip
himself into an hysterical
rage over a phrase, torn out of context and not at all

You see this all the
time in the immigration debate. Immigration enthusiasts
spend a lot of time in hysterical rages, not
infrequently because they are projecting onto
immigration reformers their own insecurities and
obsessions as members of one or other minority group.

But these immigration
enthusiasts are political liberals.  What`s significant
is that Jonah has smuggled this hysteria into what,
inverting his LA Times swipe at me, I can only
call “a once-conservative, now respected, magazine.”
[VDARE.COM NOTE: National Review was founded in order to
"stand athwart history yelling stop". See the 1955

founding statement
that used to appear on
NRO`s website, but seems to
have vanished.]

And he insists on imposing it on the conservative

Paul Gottfried is

: NR has
been captured by a strange mutant ideology (or emotional
syndrome). Fundamentally, it is in agreement with the
left—hence it`s "respected."  Contrary to Jonah, it`s
not really neoconservatism, which has specific Cold War
connotations. It can only be called

—and its
mouthpiece the Goldberg Review.

March 1, 2002